ReviewSeminars in radiation oncology2023
Selection and Prejudice: Addressing Clinical Trial Disparities With a Review of Current Shortcomings and Future Directions.
Review in Seminars in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female sex is associated with improved survival after perioperative immunotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Intersectionality-Informed HIV Cure-Related Research at the End of Life: A Call to Action.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Factors associated with clinical research participation among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical insights: five-year follow-up of KEYNOTE-189 trial outcomes and more.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Growing evidence has demonstrated significant, persistent, and widespread disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment across myriad disease sites and target populations. Although mechanisms underlying such disparities are complex and multifactorial, clinical trial eligibility criteria may serve as a key structural barrier to equitable and diverse trial enrollment. In this review, we provide an overview of the data describing historical and current disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment and subsequently describe several patient-, institution-, and trial-related factors which appear to be key drivers of enrollment inequity, with specific discussion regarding the impact of eligibility criteria. We further describe the landscape of ongoing professional efforts aimed at eliminating clinical trial disparities through various medical, professional, and advocacy groups. The review concludes with a practical discussion of how modernization of eligibility criteria in clinical trials may decrease or eliminate trial disparities, including specific actionable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of future eligibility criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.